Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the law? >> well, you are according to u.s. regulators. >> well, if you're not breaking the law, i think it's -- >> you are breaking the law in the united states. >> so regulators have what right to know that you have a bank account? >> look, i think the global financial system is getting more and more tied together. you need to be able to reach to all places. you can't have pockets where you're hiding things, particularly in an era of terrorism. you can funnel funds back and forth. that's a huge issue. although the u.s. hab coming after this from the tax perspective. >> but, becky, is regulation catching up with globalization? >> exactly. >> the finance and business globalized regulation did not. so this ability to move capital around means that government really can't keep up with it unless you have rules like this, which is no secret bank accounts. >> right. >> you know the true zealot on the anti-taxation side of things -- and no one wants to break the law. there's tax avoidance and there's tax evasion. >> you're riding things in a swiss bank account and makes sure no one knows about
but unclear whether it's a true quid pro quo or whether it gets you in the room. >> the law that it would violate, no one's actually -- even "the new york times" was afraid to say it was violating any law. it would be a bribery law. is it a bribe to -- not that you can do business in china without bribes. is it a bribe to hire someone's son or daughter -- >> not clear to me. that's why i said, it has to be organized as a quid pro quo. >> if it's secretive, if there's things that people don't want to be known about it, i think that's a different situation. >> i think they did do it that way the way they did the spreadsheets. now they're saying they did the spreadsheets because they thought people were not really being truthful. they said they were bragging about the revenue and they wanted to see if it was real. >> i don't know. >> i think it's a tough case to make but i also think there are things you wanted to hide, if there's something secretive you didn't want to be known. >> it wasn't like the people were being not paid on the regular employee rolls or that they were working but then
, congressman? >> we're engaging now. but here's the problem. the law is the law. this notion that, well, you just don't care. >> then you won't say -- then the obama -- you would say the obama administration doesn't care about this woman, right? >> i am telling you that the law they passed and promoted is not working for average people. it's causing huge disruption and harm and anguish for these people. we ought to fix that. and one of the ways you can do it is not just say we don't care, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. >> that's kind of what we're seeing happen, though. >> well, absolutely. >> i'm with you on that, both sides, sort of, there's so much partisan backdrop to the whole thing. i don't know if anyone's thinking about the actual individuals that are being affected by this. >> i disagree. we argued from the -- you're going to impact individuals. they said, listen, we're going to help 15% of the population and ruin it for 85. we said that upfront. said this is going to be -- >> and the democrats would say, you want the law to go by the wayside and not cover the -- you don't car
anything in a law that produces a round of applause. and that's the problem with health care. both sides are trying to produce a round of applause. but at the center of this law is an attempt to establish individual marketplace. that's what it's trying to do. and when you establish an individual marketplace, there's going to be substantial change for all of us. but when the president gets up and says, don't worry if you got the insurance policy, you're not going to have to change it, that wasn't true. >> so it was sold -- the marketing was flawed. >> but when the republicans say all we've got to do is tort reform and let people sell across state lines, that also isn't true. we need to have substantial -- if you want to get costs under control, we have to have a substantial amount of change. >> but the -- the change that was put in place wasn't necessarily put in place to change the cost curve. i mean, that's part of the problem, you had two problems. one was uninsured people, one was the cost curve, and a lot of obama care deals with making sure millions of people are going to have insur
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4